San Pablo v Pantranco (TRANSPO)

8/12/2019 San Pablo v Pantranco (TRANSPO)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/san-pablo-v-pantranco-transpo 1/5

Epitacio San Pablo v. Pantranco

[G.R. No. L-61461 & 61501. August 21, 1987.]

EPITACIO SAN PABLO (substituted by Heirs of E. San Pablo), petitioners, vs. PANTRANCO

SOUTH EXPRESS, INC., respondent .

CARDINAL SHIPPING CORPORATION, petitioner , vs. HONORABLE BOARD OF

TRANSPORTATION and PANTRANCO SOUTH EXPRESS, INC.,respondents.

Preliminary Info:

Problem : A CC wants to extend their certificates for public convenience beyond its operation bounds

Carrier : Pantranco

Respondents : BOT , an admin agency

Doctrine : While a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the highway whencrossing rivers or even lakes, which are small body of waters - separating the land, however, when as in

this case the two terminals, Matnog and Allen are separated by an open sea it cannot be considered as a

continuation of the highway. Therefore to operate a route on it, the carrier must obtain a separate CPC.

ER

PANTRANCO is a domestic corporation engaged in the land transportation business. It has certificates

for public conveniences (CPC) to operate passenger buses from Metro Manila to Bicol Region and

Eastern Samar.

PANTRANCO through its counsel wrote to Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA) requesting authority to

lease/purchase a vessel named MN "Black Double" to be used for its project to operate a ferryboat

service from Matnog, Sorsogon and Allen, Samar that will provide service to company buses and freight

trucks that have to cross San Bernardo Strait.

MARINA said that it cannot give due course to the request, because there was already an inter-island

shipping company operating their desired route.

MARINA policies on interisland shipping restrict the entry of new operators which are…

adequately serviced by existing/authorized operators. Market conditions in the proposed route cannot support the entry of additional tonnage

PANTRANCO nevertheless acquired the vessel MN "Black Double" .

It wrote the Chairman of the Board of Transportation (BOT) through its counsel,

that it proposes to operate a ferry service to carry its passenger buses and freight trucks

between Allen and Matnog in connection with its trips to Tacloban City.



Without awaiting action on its request PANTRANCO started to operate said ferry service.

It believes that for the purpose of continuing the highway, which is interrupted by a small body

of water, the said proposed ferry operation is merely a necessary and incidental service to its

main service and obligation of transporting its passengers.

ISSUE:

Should PANTRANCO have first gotten a separate CPC before operating that boat? YES

HELD:

Considering the distance between MATNOG and ALLEN (20km), the conveyance of passengers, trucks

and cargo from Matnog to Allen is certainly not a ferry boat service but a coastwise or interisland

shipping service.

Under no circumstance can the sea between Matnog and Allen be considered a continuation of the

highway. While a ferry boat service has been considered as a continuation of the highway when crossing

rivers or even lakes, which are small body of waters - separating the land, however, when as in this case

the two terminals, Matnog and Allen are separated by an open sea it cannot be considered as a

continuation of the highway.

Respondent PANTRANCO should secure a separate CPC for the operation of an interisland or coastwise

shipping service in accordance with the provisions of law. Its CPC as a bus transportation cannot be

merely amended to include this water service under the guise that it is a mere private ferry service

Thus the Court holds that the water transport service between Matnog and Allen is not a ferry boat

service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service. Before private respondent may be issued a

franchise or CPC for the operation of the said service as a common carrier, it must comply with the usualrequirements of filing an application, payment of the fees, publication, adducing evidence at a hearing

and affording the oppositors the opportunity to be heard, among others, as provided by law.

PANTRANCO lost.

LONG DIGEST

FACTS:

The Pantranco South Express, Inc., hereinafter referred to as PANTRANCO is a domestic corporation

engaged in the land transportation business with PUB service for passengers and freight and various

certificates for public conveniences (CPC) to operate passenger buses from Metro Manila to Bicol Region

and Eastern Samar.

On March 27,1980 PANTRANCO through its counsel wrote to Maritime Industry Authority (MARINA)

requesting authority to lease/purchase a vessel named MN "Black Double"



"to be used for its project to operate a ferryboat service from Matnog, Sorsogon and Allen,

Samar that will provide service to company buses and freight trucks that have to cross San

Bernardo Strait.

In a reply of April 29,1981 PANTRANCO was informed by MARINA that it cannot give due course to the

request, based on the following observations.

1.) The Matnog-Allen run is adequately serviced by Cardinal Shipping Corp. and Epitacio San

Pablo; MARINA policies on interisland shipping restrict the entry of new operators to

Liner trade routes where these are adequately serviced by existing/authorized

operators.

2.) Market conditions in the proposed route cannot support the entry of additional tonnage; vessel

acquisitions intended for operations therein are necessarily limited to those intended for

replacement purposes only."

PANTRANCO nevertheless acquired the vessel MN "Black Double" on May 27, 1981 for P3 Million pesos.

It wrote the Chairman of the Board of Transportation (BOT) through its counsel,

that it proposes to operate a ferry service to carry its passenger buses and freight trucks

between Allen and Matnog in connection with its trips to Tacloban City.

(Important wrong argument)

PANTRANCO claims that it can operate a ferry service in connection with its franchise for bus

operation in the highway from Pasay City to Tacloban City "for the purpose of continuing the

highway, which is interrupted by a small body of water, the said proposed ferry operation is

merely a necessary and incidental service to its main service and obligation of transporting its

passengers from Pasay City to Tacloban City.

Such being the case there is no need to obtain a separate certificate for public convenience to

operate a ferry service between Allen and Matnog to cater exclusively to its passenger busesand freight trucks.

Without awaiting action on its request PANTRANCO started to operate said ferry service.

Acting Chairman Jose C. Campos, Jr. of BOT ordered PANTRANCO not to operate its vessel until

the application for hearing on Oct. 1, 1981.

In another order BOT enjoined PANTRANCO from operating the MN "Black Double" otherwise it

will be cited to show cause why its CPC should not be suspended or the pending application

denied.

Epitacio San Pablo (now represented by his heirs) and Cardinal Shipping Corporation who are franchise

holders of the ferry service in this area interposed their opposition. They claim they adequately servicethe PANTRANCO by ferrying its buses, trucks and passengers.

BOT then asked the legal opinion from the Minister of Justice whether or not a bus company with an

existing CPC between Pasay City and Tacloban City may still be required to secure another certificate in

order to operate a ferry service between two terminals of a small body of water.

On October 20, 1981 then Minister of Justice Ricardo Puno rendered an opinion to the effect

that there is no need for bus operators to secure a separate CPC to operate a ferryboat service.



Thus on October 23, 1981 the BOT rendered its decision holding that the ferryboat service is

part of its CPC to operate from Pasay to Samar/Leyte by amending PANTRANCO's CPC so as to

reflect the same.

Cardinal Shipping Corporation and the heirs of San Pablo filed separate motions for reconsideration of

said decision and San Pablo filed a supplemental motion for reconsideration that were denied by the

BOT on July 21, 1981.

Hence, San Pablo filed the herein petition for review on certiorari with prayer for preliminary

injunction seeking the revocation of said decision, and pending consideration of the petition the

issuance of a restraining order or preliminary injunction against the operation by PANTRANCO of

said ferry service

ISSUES:

1.) Whether the sea can be considered as a continuation of the highway?

2.) Is PANTRANCO a private carrier?3.) Whether a land transportation company can be authorized to operate a ferry service or

coastwise or interisland shipping service along its authorized route as an incident to its franchise

without the need of filing a separate application for the same.

Held:

Open sea, not a continuation of highway.

Under no circumstance can the sea between Matnog and Allen be considered a continuation of the

highway. While a ferryboat service has been considered as a continuation of the highway when crossing

rivers or even lakes, which are small body of waters separating the land, however, when as in this casethe two terminals, Matnog and Allen are separated by an open sea it can not be considered as a

continuation of the highway.

The contention of private respondent PANTRANCO that its ferry service operation is as a private carrier,

not as a common carrier for its exclusive use in the ferrying of its passenger buses and cargo trucks is

absurd. PANTRANCO does not deny that it charges its passengers separately from the charges for the

bus trips and issues separate tickets whenever they board the MN "Black Double" that crosses Matnog

to Allen. Nevertheless, considering that the authority granted to PANTRANCO is to operate a private

ferry, it can still assert that it cannot be held to account as a common carrier towards its passengers and

cargo. Such an anomalous situation that will jeopardize the safety and interests of its passengers and

the cargo owners cannot be allowed.

Ferry service distinguished from interisland service.

Thus the Court holds that the water transport service between Matnog and Allen is not a ferryboat

service but a coastwise or interisland shipping service.

In Javellana case (98 Phil. 964) We made clear distinction between a ferry service and coastwise or

interisland service by holding that:" . . . We are inclined to believe that the Legislature intended ferry to

mean the service either by barges or rafts, even by motor or steam vessels, between the banks of a river



or stream to continue the highway which is interrupted by the body of water, or in some cases, to

connect two points on opposite shores of an arm of the sea such as bay or lake which does not involve

too great a distance or too long a time to navigate. But where the line or service involves crossing the

open sea like the body of water between the province of Batangas and the island of Mindoro which the

oppositors describe thus "the intervening waters between Calapan and Batangas are wide and

dangerous with big waves where small boat, barge or raft are not adapted to the service,' then it is more

reasonable to regard said line or service as more properly belonging to interisland or coastwise trade." .

. .

Separate certificate of public convenience must be secured

Respondent PANTRANCO should secure a separate CPC for the operation of an interisland or coastwise

shipping service in accordance with the provisions of law. Its CPC as a bus transportation cannot be

merely amended to include this water service under the guise that it is a mere private ferry service. Thus

the Court holds that the water transport service between Matnog and Allen is not a ferryboat service

but a coastwise or interisland shipping service.

Before private respondent may be issued a franchise or CPC for the operation of the said service as a

common carrier, it must comply with the usual requirements of filing an application, payment of thefees, publication, adducing evidence at a hearing and affording the oppositors the opportunity to be

heard, among others, as provided by law.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby GRANTED and the Decision of the respondent Board of

Transportation (BOT) of October 23, 1981 in BOT Case No. 81-348-C and its Order of July 21, 1982 in the

same case denying the motions for reconsideration filed by petitioners are hereby Reversed and set

aside and declared null and void. Respondent PANTRANCO is hereby permanently enjoined from

operating the ferryboat service and/or coastwise/interisland services between Matnog and Allen until it

shall have secured the appropriate Certificate of Public Convenience (CPC) in accordance with the

requirements of the law, with costs against respondent PANTRANCO.

Documents

San Pablo v Pantranco (TRANSPO)